Reply To: Generalizations vs. Statistics

Squeak:

“Inconclusive. He could be more or less.”

Nope – higher variance means the spread of the data is larger, covering a wider range. Assume a special bell curve. Let’s say the average Brisk IQ is 120, with a variance of 4. That’s a tall bell curve. And let’s say the average Lakewood IQ is 118, with a variance of 20. That’s a flat bell curve.

The top 50% of Brisk IQs is only 124, but the top half of Lakewood IQs would be 118-138, roughly speaking, since I am not going to make up data for my hypothetical situation. So you’d be more likely to get a smarter boy in Lakewood if there was a high variance and you’re already selecting for above average intelligence.

(Yes, I’m exaggerating to make a point about how to use statistics. They never line up so nicely in real life.) Yes, a particular boy will be what he will be, but we are discussing probabilities, and in real life we make decisions without knowing everything, through probabilities.

“Patently false. No amount of statistics yields facts.”

Really? What about a census?

“No, their entire problem is that they completely lack statistics and instead use emotional anecdotery. Would that they abused statistics, for then they could be made to see reason.”

Ever saw their red, blue and gray chart? They claim it is based on statistics, exaggerated to make their point of course.

Thanks for your good wishes on my studying.